Sub-solar point.

Hello, I new to the site and I'm really curious how dose the sub-solar points fit in the Flat Earth model. Here is a video by Michael Stevens(Vsauce) explaining it.
  It starts roughly at 3:15

One of the best, non mathematical explanations of what the earth, sun and universe are doing.

Thanks for posting

The thing that bothers me is that, shouldn't there be more (I mean a lot more) places in the US where this phenomenon occurs (if we follow the FA model illustrated here)?

The thing that bothers me is that, shouldn't there be more (I mean a lot more) places in the US where this phenomenon occurs (if we follow the FA model illustrated here)?

The "sub-solar" point has to somewhere between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.
On the Southern Summer Solstice the sub-solar point moves along the Tropic of Capricorn,
at either Equinox the sub-solar point crosses the Equator and
on the Northern Summer Solstice the sub-solar point moves along the Tropic of Cancer.

That video might be an interesting visualisation of the Earth's movement, but looking at the motion relative to the sun simplifies the movement from our perspective.

this is something i have been trying to find an answer for from FE people and still havent. the Sub solar point makes any flat earth model impossible (especially their seasons explanation)

So from what i have seen of flat earth models they explain seasons as the sun changing from traveling over the equator and tropics but the sub solar point on a flat earth model would be just off center of the equator all the time and it just wouldn't work unless you came up with a different way to explain seasons

this is something i have been trying to find an answer for from FE people and still havent. the Sub solar point makes any flat earth model impossible (especially their seasons explanation)

Notice the FET people have left this thread alone? The entire video is proof of RE.

IF FET responds, it will be to highjack the thread

so sad. i mean if you are going to be on a website devoted to FE at least like go for it but these guys just dance around questions and completely ignore things so like why even bother defending it in the first place

This thread is the one that made me register on this site. Being a fan of Vsauce on youtube I've seen this video earlier and absolutely love it! Actually, it was the first Vsauce video I ever saw and so I was hooked forever.

Funny how things goes. These two phenomenons (Vsauce/TFES) will be intertwined in my mind.

EDIT: Why does the forum change my text? TFES->google? Very odd indeed..

It has been 5 days since I posted my thread and almost a month since JusticeCat's thread and there is no response on the subject about subsolar points from the Flat Earth community. I am highly disappointed from this forum.

It seems that flat Earthers have simply ignored this topic.

Hi Zippo,

I also asked them about New Zealand to Chile flights in 11h20, direct flight. And how it is possible to explain it with a FE map...
They are silent on all these subjects, which are problems for them cause they open people's eyes.

Talk about religion-related topics, and they will just pop up in a few minutes.

Almost 2 months and no response.
I thought this was a serious forum. I thought you wanted to spread your word about the flat earth and expose the lies from the round earthers.
I am starting to think this is just a troll forum that is made to make fun of people who actually believe in this.I will be happy if someone at least post some BS explanation (its not like if FEr post something will be any different from BS) just for the lolz.

Sub solar points are simply the position on earth (which appears to be) directly under the sun. Wihout making me watch a video of unknown length or origin,  can you tell me what exactly I'm supposed to be shocking to me regarding the movement of the sun? Analemas have been documented by civilizations reaching well back before the time of Pythagorean globularism.

Sub solar points are simply the position on earth (which appears to be) directly under the sun. Wihout making me watch a video of unknown length or origin,  can you tell me what exactly I'm supposed to be shocking to me regarding the movement of the sun? Analemas have been documented by civilizations reaching well back before the time of Pythagorean globularism.

Just look at FE FAQ and models. Sun circles directly above earth and there should be sub solar points everywhere on its trajectory. Almost entire Africa, Australia, South America is covered when sun moves from winter trajectory to summer trajectory.  Also half Asia continent and North America.

You're aware of elementary visual aids used to demonstrate a concept as opposed to being rigourous models, are you not?

It's akin to me attacking the solar system by saying this image isn't to scale:


"How can you explain asteroid belts as semi solid arcs? Wouldn't we see them?  And look at the size of those planets? Jupiter would take up half the sky! How can the sun seem so small and not take up the entire sky during the day? You don't have any explanations for THAT, do you?"

How seriously would you take that criticism and how much time would you waste disputing it?

Perhaps the lack of response is because your post boils down to noise and not real issues. Do they teach any critical thinking in schools today?

I don't get it. How is your last comment addressing anything zork said? Just explain why in the US this phenomenon occurs only in Hawaii twice a year? Should't this happen more often on more places?

zippo, you posted a video which starts off with this kind of image:



In case you didn't know, this is the galactic orbit of the heliocentrical solar system as it moves through space; however, it is completely unexplained by modern science.



Let me explain.

The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler.  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Sir Oliver Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


You are looking for answers within the wrong FE context: the official faq which is worthless.

The sun does rise and set, and is not 50 km in diameter, nor is it orbiting at a distance of some 3000 miles above the Earth.

It's seems that i didn't researched the Flat Earth community well enough. I didn't realize that there are other vastly different FE models from the one described in the FAQ.
And btw the video I posted talks about many things and the only one I am interested is the subsolar point. The things you listed above about the movement of the the Solar System through Space is off topic. The last two sentences were enough.
Would you be kind enough to point 1 (or more) FE models that most of this community agrees on?

You're aware of elementary visual aids used to demonstrate a concept as opposed to being rigourous models, are you not?

  I just clarified what is the issue with sub-solar point in FE models which you have in FAQ and everywhere on internet. And elementary visual aids usually demonstrate things quite good enough that you get the point. FE model as elementary visual aid conveys quite clearly the idea that the Sun circles above the Earth and there shuld be sub-solar points everywhere. But there is not. So the elementary visual aid has some problems which should be corrected.

Why would there be subsolar points "everywhere"? They're documented locations. Why don't you plot them all and explain to me what your issue is.

Why would there be subsolar points "everywhere"? They're documented locations. Why don't you plot them all and explain to me what your issue is.

The problem is that there are no subsolar points in the US except Hawaii and only occurs twice per year. If we follow the FE model described in FAQ there should be more. How the heck didn't I made my self clear enough?!?!

Edit: Here is a site that tracks the sub-solar point and the sub-lunar point. http://rl.se/sub-solar-point

What is you reason for believing this would be the case?  Why would the sun suddenly begin to travel norh of the tropic of cancer?   

Why would there be subsolar points "everywhere"? They're documented locations. Why don't you plot them all and explain to me what your issue is.

Yes, they are at documented locations but your visual aid on FE FAQ and all other similar  FE models suggest quite clearly that there must be more. Or can we say that your visual aid does not actually represent the way the Sun moves above the flat earth? How does it move then?

Why would there be more?     Perhaps you're misapplying a visual aid.

Quote from: Ski on August 22, 2016, 11:13:36 AM

Why would there be subsolar points "everywhere"? They're documented locations. Why don't you plot them all and explain to me what your issue is.

Yes, they are at documented locations but your visual aid on FE FAQ and all other similar  FE models suggest quite clearly that there must be more. Or can we say that your visual aid does not actually represent the way the Sun moves above the flat earth? How does it move then?

I'm a bit mystified too. Even with the usual Flat Earth model the sub-solar point would simply "spiral" between the Tropic of Cancer (at the Northern Summer Solstice), crossing the Equator (at each Equinox) to the Tropic of Capricorn (at the Southern Summer Solstice) and back.

Maybe you can explain in more detail what you mean, with a diagram or two.

This is precisely what I meant earlier about reflexive defense of the Orthodoxy and the blind, mindless attacks on dissent, rabinoz. They are blinded by religious fervor.

This is precisely what I meant earlier about reflexive defense of the Orthodoxy and the blind, mindless attacks on dissent, rabinoz. They are blinded by religious fervor.

Touché, but I do believe that we see exactly the same thing from many Flat Earthers and they are often blinded by literal religious fervor.

So many just prove that they have no idea of how the globe "works", then use that lack of understanding as "proof" that the earth is flat.

Really, they should put a little more effort into defending the flat earth model,

this is something i have been trying to find an answer for from FE people and still havent. the Sub solar point makes any flat earth model impossible (especially their seasons explanation)

Sub-solar point is simply point that is directly below the Sun.
Point where (and when) shadows have angle zero.

Flat Earth map may have many flaws and inabilities to be accurate, but this is not one of them.
In this particular matter, Globe and Flat earth have sub-solar points at same latitudes and longitudes in same moment in time.

Why would there be more?     Perhaps you're misapplying a visual aid.

Maybe. Guide me then how do I can apply visual aid differently. If I put some light source directly over flat earth map or watch some models like then the Sun is always directly over some spot.